`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[DO NOT PUBLISH]
`
`
`In the
`United States Court of Appeals
`For the Eleventh Circuit
`
`____________________
`
`No. 24-14030
`
`
`
`Non-Argument Calendar
`
`____________________
`
`
`NANCY C. SALAS,
`
`versus
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY,
`a foreign corporation,
`
`
`BAYER CORPORATION,
`a foreign corporation, et al.,
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
` Defendant-Appellant,
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 24-14030 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2025 Page: 2 of 3
`
`2
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`24-14030
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`____________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Florida
`D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-21217-KMW
`____________________
`
`Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`Monsanto Company appeals a judgment against it—
`conceding that Circuit precedent requires us to affirm. We grant
`its unopposed motion for summary affirmance.
`
`Monsanto manufactures Roundup®, a widely used
`herbicide. In Carson v. Monsanto Co., we held that the Federal
`Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136
`et seq., did not preempt a Georgia plaintiff’s state-law failure-to-
`warn claim related to Roundup®. 92 F.4th 980, 986 (11th Cir.
`2024).
`
`As relevant here, Nancy Salas sued Monsanto in Florida state
`court in 2021, alleging that she contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma
`from her exposure to Roundup®. Salas asserted various state-law
`claims, including negligent failure to warn. Salas and Monsanto
`agreed to settle their dispute. The parties jointly stipulated that the
`district court would enter judgment against Monsanto on Salas’s
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 24-14030 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2025 Page: 3 of 3
`
`24-14030
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`3
`
`failure-to-warn claim, but Monsanto reserved the right to appeal
`the judgment on federal preemption grounds. The district court
`then entered final judgment against Monsanto. Monsanto now
`appeals.
`
`Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of
`one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can
`be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case[.]”
`Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).1
`Carson controls here. On the merits of the preemption issue,
`the two cases are indistinguishable. Florida law, like Georgia law,
`“require[s] pesticide manufacturers to warn users of potential risks
`to health and safety” and thus parallels FIFRA. Carson, 92 F.4th at
`992. And because “the holding of the first panel to address an issue”
`remains the law in this Circuit “unless and until” the Court sitting
`en banc or the Supreme Court intervenes, Carson’s analysis
`governs. Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.8 (11th Cir.
`2001).
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Because there is “no substantial question as to the outcome”
`of this appeal, we GRANT Monsanto’s motion for summary
`affirmance and AFFIRM the judgment below. Groendyke Transp.,
`Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
`
`
`1 Groendyke Transportation is binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit under
`Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
